Open seat for governor in 2010? How did Scutari learn that Munsil and Goldwater agreed to one term? That's the only way that the Insider could be accurate...unless...do you think that Chip has made an assumption about the status of the current race?

Does he simply assume that the race is over--Janet will be re-elected and termed out in 2010? Does the Republic's political reporter assume that the Republicans don't have a chance? More importantly, is that assumption reflected in the Republic's coverage of the race?

That would explain a lot.

Prom Dates, Debt Financing and Hardball

The Arizona Daily Star has crossed over a bright line.

Later this week it is expected to get to the floor of the Senate, but that's up to Senate President Ken Bennett, who is juggling the views of people with differing opinions — among them his policy adviser, Mark Swenson, who thinks the measure is unconstitutional. Lawyers for the House and Senate think it's legal.

Bennett must weigh Tucson's broad business and political support against Swenson's concerns...

Did you catch it? This time of year, everyone loves to grumble about House and Senate Staff--especially about Mark Swenson. But the Star has crossed the bounds of good behavior by singling Swenson out in an editorial.

The Legislative Session is like the prom. The Legislators are good girls who are trying to enjoy the dance, get good grades and make sure they do the right thing. The lobbyists who work for private industry and increasingly, cities, universities, state agencies and other special interests equate to the rapacious prom dates who only want one thing. Staff act as chaperones.

"Golly, I would love to step out back and have a beer, but you see that guy over there? He's a friend of my dad and he would catch us, so we had better stay inside where it's nice and light."

Without staff, bills would go through the process like George Patton through a goose. All of those bills have money on them and they all do wonderful things...but they can't all pass. Some staffer has to say, hey, that bill can't go because it has too much money on it

Swenson plays that roll in the Senate. Bennett needs him as an excuse...and the world is better off if he's at the prom.

Conventional Wisdom on Graf Changing

I've been saying for months that the immigration issue is going to play so big in District 8 that Graf's chances against Weiss or Giffords are being seriously underestimated. It looks like the Washington folks are starting to think the same thing.

Hotline is the ultimate insider when it comes to Washington political gossip and the folks there have begun to reconsider Graf's chances.

Rep. Chris Shays' (R-CT 04) comments on immigration last week could be a warning sign for candidates far from the border. He said that, after hearing from constituents, he's taken a more hard-line stance on border security. What's notable is that Shays represents a culturally liberal, affluent Connecticut suburb -- a district where immigration hasn't been a top issue.

Until recently, conventional wisdom held that GOPers would be best-served nominating candidates with more moderate views on border security. Under that logic, immigration hardliner Randy Graf would jeopardize GOPers' ability to hold onto AZ 08. Shays' statement indicates the CW on border security may be changing. In IA 01 immigration is the dominant theme in the GOP primary, but Dems have barely addressed the issue. Could some Dems find themselves vulnerable if they fail to talk tough on immigration? [JOSH KRAUSHAAR]

May 30, 2006

Tucson Wants One Billion Dollars

Every evening, when I spend $100 at Costco, $5.60 goes to the state. They blow most of it on education, health care and stuff like that. And, of course, significant portion is shared with the cities in the form of state shared revenue.

One day an evil genius invented a gimmick called "Tax Increment Financing." It goes something like this.

"Mr. Legislator, I want to build a big retail project in the barrio (or on a toxic waste dump, in a river bed etc.) But I can't seem to get anyone to finance it. If this project is successful, then the state will automatically collect $5 of every hundred dollars that's spent on trinkets, ticket sales, Hummers etc. Since the project hasn't been built yet the state currently collects nothing on this abandoned property. How about for the first 10 years, you let me keep the 5.6% that otherwise would have gone to the state and I'll use it to finance the project?

After all...the state isn't getting anything for that land now...so it's not like you are really giving me the money."

So the project is Financed by the Incremental Taxes...Tax Increment Financing. Get it?

OK, you may think that it's a good idea or not, but let's agree on one thing...the "I" is for Incremental.

The City of Tucson won approval for a TIF project called "Rio Nuevo" and then played a little trick with the boundaries. Here's how, the Star described it.

The boundary looks like a thermometer. Downtown is the circle at the bottom. The top of the thermometer is a straight line going East on Broadway. The line is just wide enough to take in El Con and Park Place malls. The idea was to collect sales taxes generated by the malls and use the funds to build an arts and entertainment district Downtown.

Isn't that clever? They got the project approved and then raised the revenue by drawing a narrow line half way across the city so that the TIF district included two 20-year-old malls. That little trick allows them to siphon existing revenue out of the state budget.

The paper was pretty honest about it.

More broadly, the idea was to take sales taxes that were collected locally and invest them in local projects.

I'm hoping to do that with my $5 at Costco. I think I'll keep the money and when the Department of Revenue calls, I'll say that I'm going to spend the money on stuff that I want to buy. Or perhaps I'll say.

More broadly, the idea was to take sales taxes that were collected locally and invest them in local projects.

I wonder how I will use my one phone call.

But even with gerrymandering, the Tucson project isn't viable.

Last year, the city went back to the Legislature and asked that the life-span of the TIF be extended from 10 years to 40. The city did not ask that the boundary for the TIF district be redrawn. It said give us more time, because all these projects are more expensive and more complex than we originally thought.

Frankly, I'm shocked. You mean the projects are more expensive and more complex than we originally thought? Next you are going to tell me that the new Phoenix Convention Center is over budget and Light Rail is behind schedule.

The Star has changed tactics and is now admitting the full price tag of the proposal, and asserts that the only reason Legislators could oppose it is that they don't like Tucson.

Sadly, what we saw in recent weeks as the fight over tax increment financing in Tucson unfolded in the Capitol was a script that went something like this: "If we (we being some powerful legislators from Maricopa County) allow this bill to get passed, over the next 30 years Tucson will get to suck away $1 billion in state sales taxes that could have been spent in Phoenix."

Dude, it's a BILLION DOLLARS.

If the community happens to be in Southern Arizona, where Democrats outnumber Republicans, there is all the more reason for Republican-dominated Maricopa County to ignore it.

We cannot see that there is any other reasonable explanation for the reluctance of the Legislature to approve the Tucson TIF bill.

That's right, there couldn't be any other reason why those nasty Phoenix boys--like Ken Bennett (R) Prescott--wouldn't want to write a billion dollar check.

My son turns 14 next month. I love him dearly, but he's not getting a Mercedes. I know that he will think that I don't love him, and if he had friends at the Star, they would be telling everyone in the state that I'm a bad dad, but he still doesn't get the Mercedes.

Buying him a Mercedes wouldn't make me a good dad, and letting Tucson keep a billion dollars doesn't make a good Legislator...no matter what the Star thinks.

Now if the billion dollars was going to be used to build a giant "laser,"...that might be different.

To the last, I grapple with thee;

I've had a lot of response to my post on Jon Kamman's obsession with Bob Stump. This one was typical.

I am glad to see that my 'craziness' barometer was not out of wack when I read this article. I was similarly struck by the banality of the
whole exercise. I think the article did a good job of outlining the
issue of what happens to money after a candidate dies, leaves office or
loses a race. At the same time, I couldn't join the authors angst about
the few bucks left in Bob Stump's bank account.

Thank you for confirming that the feeling of 'craziness' I had in
reading the article was legitimate.

Ron

Do As I Say...

Here's an interesting point about John McCain's Presidential run.

JOHN McCain undeclared but ubiquitous presidential campaign will produce a delicious moment when he announces, as he surely will, that he will not participate in the public funding system for presidential primaries. And if he is nominated, he and his Democratic opponent probably will be the first nominees since 1972 to rely on private money in the general election campaign.

There are two compounded ironies. First, the mantra of campaign reformers is that there is too much money in politics. But McCain will shun public funding because it provides too little money. He can raise much more from private interests. (But not from special interests, which are interests McCain disapproves of.) Second, the reformers revere the McCain-Feingold legislation that expanded government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of political speech. But McCain-Feingold is one important reason why the public funding system is collapsing.

May 26, 2006

Things fall apart; the Centre cannot hold

It looks like the southern Arizona Democratic Party has become engaged in a full blown civil war.

Here's Tedski's take on it.

I guess we have ourselves a trend. You may remember that last week a letter anonymously went out from a couple of brave souls trashing Councilmember José Ibarra. This week, some other group of oh so brave souls are trashing Senator Gabrielle Giffords.

Oh, but they aren't anonymous...they have a name, "Real Democrats for Real Democrats."

Once again, they dig up the phony issue about Giffords's choice of campaign chairs. Giffords's original chairs were Dorothy Finley and Eddie Basha. When she first picked Basha, I heard grousing that he was anti-labor. Then, she dropped Basha. The complaint was then that she was selling out to that gawdawful special interest, organized labor.

Since Basha is gone and Finley is now backing Huffman, I think Gabby has two fewer things to worry about.

A Tale full of Sound and Furry

I used to pick up my kids from kindergarten and they would regale me with breathless tales about some event in their day--twenty minute stories that boiled down to "Johnny dropped his Crayon and I picked it up." Nothing really happened, but they sure were excited about it. Kids are so cute.

Most kids grow out of that stage. Adults don't get too many chances to spend 2,000 words breathlessly describing a meaningless event.

So, it was with great anticipation that I sat down to read Jon Kamman's 2,000 word, A1 above the fold, story about Lisa Atkins and Bob Stump. After all, Kamman is an award-winning reporter, he's married to a reporter and he's one of the Republic's most experienced writers.

Furthermore, the Republic doesn't give much ink to scandals. When the Clean Elections Director recommended that Gov. Napolitano's campaign be audited for possible spending violations, the Republic only invested a few hundred words on B7.

So I knew this would be interesting. Sure enough, it opened like a mystery novel.

It started as a question about a political oddity:

Why is U.S. Rep. Bob Stump's campaign fund sitting untouched with more than $58,000 in the bank four years after he announced his retirement from Congress and nearly three years after he died?

Outstanding, I love a good mystery. There's noting better than brewing a couple espressos on a Saturday morning and reading a good political thriller.

In the case of the Stump and Atkins accounts, the dollar amounts of the inaccuracies are relatively small, but the central issues remain: Can the financial reports filed by campaign committees be trusted and is Federal Election Commission enforcement adequate?

Wait a second. The amounts are small, Congressman Stump has been out of congress for 4 years and dead for 3 years. Lisa Atkins lost her bid for Congress and is working in the private sector. Why is this a story?

The questions are arising with increasing urgency because of admissions by ex-lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff that he sought to buy political influence with millions of dollars of contributions, mostly funneled from Indian tribes to members of Congress. Some politicians failed to report some of the contributions.

Atkins said tracking down why the bank balance in the Stump account is, in rounded terms, $59,700 instead of the $58,500 reported to the Federal Election Commission for 18 months may require searching through years of reports.

After Stump died in June 2003, his campaign account donated $75,000 to a drive to endow a Bob Stump Chair in Cultural History at ASU's West campus.

What? Jack Abramoff stole millions of dollars so Jon Kamman wants the FEC to invest its limited resources to track down a $1,200 rounding error in the account of a Congressman who has been dead for 3 years? That despite the fact the the money is being donated to charity?

Is that the purpose of the is 2,000 word A1 above the fold story?

Kamman continues:

In interviews, Atkins emphasized...

Interviews? Plural? As in more than one? Lisa Atkins worked for Bob Stump for 26 years, handled all of his financial reports and after he passed away worked with his widow to establish a charitable endowment with his excess contributions and somewhere along the line one of the reports picked up a rounding error that Jon Kamman wants the FEC to investigate because after all, Jack Abramoff stole millions of dollars and Kamman had to interview her more than once? What the heck did he talk about? Leave the woman alone.

Call Me Jon

Captain Kamman takes us on a long voyage in his attempt to grapple with the ghost of Bob Stump. Along the way we encounter the Challenger Center, Peoria finances and a host of Treasurers, living and dead. With no apparent sense of irony, Kamman concludes that the Treasurers aren't doing their job. The positions are unpaid.

The length of this labyrinthine journey makes it clear that Kamman has spent hundreds of hours poring over years of reports filed by Stump and Atkins.

A litany of problems was found in The Arizona Republic's review of more than 40 Stump and Atkins financial reports filed periodically with the commission.

But what has he found? Like Geraldo Rivera standing in front of Al Copone's empty safe on live TV, Kamman discovers a handful of trivial errors in the old reports of a dead former Congressman and the one-time aide who tried to succeed him.

It is a testament to Kamman's prestige within the paper that the Republic ran the story at all, yet it appeared A1 above the fold.

Eventually Kamman tries to juice up the story by disclosing that Atkins has leftover debt from her Congressional run. The consultants didn't recall the debt and have no intention of trying to collect it. This means that Atkins will (gasp) correct past reports, submit a debt-settlement plan to the Federal Election Commission and apply for permission to close the account.

It sounds like a scene from the movie Office Space.

Yeah. It's just that we're putting new coversheets on all the TPS reports "before" they go out now. So if you could just remember to do that from now on, that'd be great. All right!

Not The First Time

This isn't the first time that Jon Kamman has gone off half cocked on Bob Stump.

In August of 2001, Kamman wrote a series of stories about Bob Stump's residence. It started on shaky ground and went down from there.

Stump, 74, confirmed in an impromptu interview at his farm that he and gubernatorial aide Nancy Baehre, 62, were married two weeks ago in Gila Bend, formalizing a 20-year relationship.

Yeah, right. Jon Kamman drove uninvited to Bob Stump's farm in Tolleson and knocked on the door for an "impromptu interview" to see if he had gotten married.

While he was there he just happened to ask about Stump's residency. Now residency is a matter of intent. After all, congressmen spend most of their time in Washington and there is no requirement that they live in their district.

Stump responded that the farm was his place of business.

BOOM.

Kamman jumped on that statement and claimed that Stump didn't really live on the farm, so he had been voting in the wrong precinct for 41 years.

From late August to mid October, Jon Kamman wrote seven articles totaling 4,000 words--many of which were on A1--questioning the legal ramifications of Bob Stump saying that the farm that he had owned his entire life was his "business." Eventually Stump clarified what we knew all along.

"The farm is my home ... my voting residence and the place to which I return, regardless of the number of places I live and sleep for the time being," Stump, 74, said under oath.

Stump didn't run for re-election. Two years after the Kamman "impromptu interview" Stump died of a rare blood disorder.

Here's how the Republic Editorial Board described him.

But his closeness to the land, his love of his country, his decency and honesty stand out. He was as simple and enduring as the breakfast he ate every day: Grits, two eggs over easy and whole wheat bread.

An American breakfast. An American man.

Yet four years after Stump left office and three years after his death, Jon Kamman gets one last shot...one more A1 above the fold breathless story about Bob Stump.

It is only in retrospect that we can look at Jon Kamman's coverage of Bob Stump and realize, in the words of the Bard that:

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

May 25, 2006

Good Help is Hard to Find

District 8 Democratic contender Gabrielle Giffords started her race with all the right moves. Her resignation from the Senate made it clear that she was serious about the race; she opened an early money lead and announced an impressive duo as her co-chairs.

The campaign is off and running. I am blessed by help from my dear friends Eddie Basha and Dorothy Finley, who serve as honorary co-chairs.

Basha is a Democratic icon and Finley is a prominent Pima County Republican. That's an impressive combination.

Basha's name fell off the list almost immediately. Speculation about his short tenure as chairman centers around Gabby caving to labor union protests about his non-union stores. Basha faces stiff competition from Wal-Mart (which he once famously compared to Nazis) so he can't be expected to unionize simply to curry favor with the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately wing of the Democratic Party.

Well at least Gabby still has Finley. Maybe.

I wonder if Gabby's camp has learned that Finley just wrote a $1,000 check to Giffords' opponent Steve Huffman.

I guess she's gonna need a couple new Chairmen.

Republic Publisher discusses Benji

Earlier this week, I told the story of a child named Benji showing up at my door with his "adult sponsor" to see if I would buy a subscription to the Republic so he could go to camp. (If you haven't read the initial story, this one's not going to make much sense, so skip down the May 22.)

Publisher John Zidich sent this general denial.

Greg,

Simply put we don't sell the paper this way. In fact, most of the
comments made by the "sponsor" or your interpretation of how the business works is inaccurate.

I called the circulation department and eventually tracked down a sales manager who told me that the Republic is aware that one of their venders has salesmen who use the send-a-kid-to-camp technique. The manager doesn't like it because the subscribers aren't as interested in buying a paper as they are sending a kid to camp.

I told the manager about the $5 that I gave to Benji and the adult sponsor's claim that the money would be used for subscriptions that would be given to charity. The manager assured me that this can't happen because the Republic verifies the addresses of each new subscriber. We chatted about a few more details and I thanked him for his time.

To his credit, the manager called me back within about a minute and asked me about the contribution. He didn't think it was acceptable for the door to door solicitors to accept charitable contributions and he's going to look into it.

I called the publisher Mr. Zidich and related the details of my call with the sales manager. He assured me that the Republic verifies each new subscriber and the Audit Bureau of Circulation audits the addresses of the subscribers to ensure that there are no phantom papers. He doesn't think that my $5 went to buy a subscription that was donated to a charity. In fact, he believes that their controls are so tight that this couldn't happen. He thinks my $5 is in someone's pocket. I hope it is in Benji's pocket.

Are the accounting controls really that tight? If the adult sponsor was just going to keep the money, why would he construct an elaborate story about the money going for subscriptions that are then donated to charity? If he was going to lie, why not just say that Benji could keep the money.

Does he get enough incentive that he would prefer to use the money for phantom subscriptions than to keep the cash? And then does he have a way to make fool the auditors?

The publisher doesn't seem to think so.

Interestingly, Mr. Zidich didn't share his sales manager's concern about children selling subscriptions. He indicated that he had been a paper carrier and that as long as the vendor and boy stayed on the script and only offered packages that the Republic provided, it was fine.

I agree. Voluntary transactions benefit both parties--selling papers, sewing soccer balls, whatever, put the little urchins to work. No X Box until you finish stitching that new pair of Air Jordans...my gosh, the paper is run by Republicans. Who would have guess it?

AZGOP letter to Clean Elections...Wow.

Dear Mr. Lang:

I serve as the Executive Director to the Arizona State Republican Party (AZGOP). In that capacity, and on behalf of the AZGOP, this letter serves as the AZGOP’s reply in opposition to the May 4, 2006, verified letter response submitted to the Commission by attorney Andrew S. Gordon on behalf of his clients, candidate Janet Napolitano and the Janet Napolitano 2006 Committee (collectively referred to as “Ms. Napolitano”). Ms. Napolitano’s response, as you are aware, addresses the Complaint filed with the Commission on April 24, 2006, by the AZGOP

The AZGOP respectfully submits that a reasonable and objective application of Arizona election law to the currently known facts amply establishes that Ms. Napolitano violated the letter and spirit of the law. The only remaining question centers on the appropriate remedy for the violation, and whether the Commission is willing to apply Arizona election law equally to all people regardless of their position or power.

The AZGOP understands that the Commission’s decision concerning the appropriate remedy to impose on any candidate for a violation is always a difficult burden for the Commission. It is difficult enough to decide on an equitable remedy to impose for an election violation when it is made by a private citizen or “average Joe” running for office, or even a sitting state legislator. It is also, no doubt, a far more difficult decision and burden when deciding on the remedy to impose on a powerful incumbent seeking reelection to the highest office in Arizona. This is, however, as it is so often said, a “nation of laws.” No person is above the law. The AZGOP, therefore, respectfully urges the Commission to act fairly and responsibly on this matter without regard to consideration of rank or privilege.

Although the AZGOP believes that Ms. Napolitano has violated Arizona election law, the AZGOP understands that this is a question that the Commission must decide for itself. To help the Commission decide, the AZGOP wishes to raise several points about the response submitted by Ms. Napolitano and requests that the Commission consider the same.

THE CURRENTLY KNOWN UNDISPUTED FACTS

As an initial matter, it may be helpful for the Commission to understand what currently known facts are not disputed in this matter. These undisputed facts are as follows:

· Consultant IWS engaged in “discussions and planning done for launching the campaign prior to filing the [Ms. Napolitano] Statement of Organization.” (Response at pg. 2)

· IWS designed and built a campaign website for Ms. Napolitano before the March 1, 2006 filing of Ms. Napolitano’s Statement of Organization. (Response at pg. 2, and attached Letter of Agreement for Internet Consulting and Related Services)

· IWS assembled email addresses for Ms. Napolitano’s campaign before the March 1, 2006 filing of Ms. Napolitano’s Statement of Organization. (Response at pg. 6)

· Political committees must register before making expenditures. (Response at pg. 2)

· Ms. Napolitano “may not incur debt before receiving Commission funding.” (Response at pg. 4, and attached Commission publication entitled “Campaign Expenditures”).

· IWS designed and built website for Ms. Napolitano before her campaign was up and running on March 1, 2006, the day her Statement of Organization was filed.

· IWS assembled email addresses and used the same on March 1, 2006 in a “blast” email to numerous people. This was done for, and on behalf of, Ms. Napolitano’s campaign.

· Ms. Napolitano filed her Statement of Organization “on the morning of March 1^st.” (Response at pg. 5)

Based on the foregoing, the AZGOP submits that there is no question that a substantial and costly amount of high-value work was performed by IWS for Ms. Napolitano before she filed her Statement of Organization on March 1, 2006. As such, the question presented is whether Ms. Napolitano incurred a debt before the filing, and/or whether she made an “expenditure” before the filing.

THE VIOLATION OF ARIZONA ELECTION LAW.

Arizona statute 16-901(8) broadly defines the term “expenditure.” More specifically, the term “expenditure” includes “any… contract, promise or agreement to make an expenditure resulting in an extension of credit….”

In reliance on a contract between her committee and IWS signed after the filing of her Statement of Organization, Ms. Napolitano claims she violated no law because “(1) there was no pre-filing promise obligating the campaign for payment and (2) this was a regularly recurring administrative expense.” (Response at pg. 6). This statement is problematic for several reasons.

First, there are no affidavits, or Rule (80)(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P, declarations made under penalty of perjury, from IWS consultant Max Fose, campaign official Noah Kroloff, or any other person plainly stating to the effect that there was no promise, “understanding,” or agreement that IWS would be compensated or hired in the future. As you are aware, a “contract, promise or agreement” can be made orally. Often mere “intimations” between parties about a “possible” course of action can lead to obligations that are found enforceable under the law. A contract, promise or agreement need not be in writing to be binding. Indeed, there is an entire body of contract law concerning the enforcement of “understandings” between parties that are never reduced to writing. (See, e.g., Promissory Estoppel RAJI (3d) at Contracts 28; Quantum Meruit RAJI (3d) at Contracts 24)

Second, it is difficult to believe that IWS/Fose rendered the stated services to Ms. Napolitano for free, and without any expectation, understanding, or intimation of receiving future payment or a contract. Perhaps he was providing free service, but it seems unlikely and defies common sense.

Third, the “conditions” in the admitted understanding between Ms. Napolitano and IWS are illusory. Ms. Napolitano’s response states that “prior to filing the Statement of Organization, the vendor [IWS/Fose] understood that if Governor Napolitano choose not to run for reelection or the campaign decided not to use IWS’ services, any preparatory or planning work done by IWS would be without compensation.” The response, however, contains no evidence from IWS that this is a sworn fact. Moreover, the response contains no evidence that Ms. Napolitano ever seriously considered not running for reelection. This “condition,” therefore, was, in fact, non-existent. The response also contains no evidence that Ms. Napolitano was considering any other potential vendors for the design and creation of a campaign website, or the preparation for a broadcast email strategy. This “condition,” therefore, was also non-existent. Again, the “conditions” were illusory.

Fourth, even by her own admission, Ms. Napolitano concedes that IWS understood it would be paid if: (1) she ran for re-election, and (2) if she ended up using IWS’ services. Common sense tells us that she made those decisions before filing her March 1, 2006 Statement of Organization and simultaneously authorizing the debut of her IWS designed website and launching of the “blast” emails. The AZGOP, therefore, submits that even under her own statement, Ms. Napolitano incurred a debt to IWS/Fose before her organizational filing, and made an “expenditure” as defined by statute.

Fifth, regardless of whether the agreement with IWS/Fose, whether oral and then later reduced to writing, was a “regularly recurring administrative expense,” a debt was incurred before her organization was formed, and an “expenditure” took place (i.e., an extension of credit).

A reasonable application of the law to the facts show that Ms. Napolitano violated the law by incurring debt and making an expenditure before she formed her campaign committee.

THE CURRENTLY KNOWN FACTS WARRANT A FULL INVESTIGATION

If the Commission has any doubt that Ms. Napolitano violated the law, it is incumbent upon it to investigate the matter and independently determine the facts so it may make a fair and impartial decision on whether a violation occurred, and if so, what to do about it. The Clean Elections Act was passed, in part, because citizens believed that incumbents have “an unhealthy advantage over challengers” and the public lacks “confidence in the integrity of public officials.” A.R.S. § 16-940(B) (2) and (5). Ms. Napolitano’s actions are squarely within the orbit of deeds that the Clean Elections Act was designed, and passed by voters, to protect against.

An investigation is also important, if not essential, to determine whether Ms. Napolitano’s violation was done with knowledge or “knowingly.” This is important because a “knowing violation of section 16-941” triggers certain penalties. Also, a person who “knowingly violates section 16-941 is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.”

The Commission has the broad authority to subpoena witnesses, subpoena documents, compel testimony, administer oaths and affirmative, and take evidence. A.R.S. § 16-956 (B). The Commission needs to exercise this authority to determine the truth. Again, the position and power of the person subject to a Complaint should not dictate whether an investigation takes place.

THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION

The AZGOP submits that based on the currently known facts a violation occurred. The available remedies and sanctions for a violation are covered by statute.

A.R.S. § 16-942(C) provides the most serious penalty. As an initial matter, the incurring of a debt or the making of an expenditure by a “clean candidate” before the filing of her Statement of Organization is an undisputable violation of A.R.S. § 16-941. (See 16-941(A) (2), (3) and (5)). Under A.R.S. § 16-942(C ) the Commission has authority to disqualify Ms. Napolitano as a candidate for governor. This is the political “death penalty.” However, this same section also provides for an alternative whereby the Commission has the authority to disqualify Ms. Napolitano from receiving public monies as a “clean candidate.”

A.R.S. § 16-942(A) provides another range of penalty. Under this section, the civil penalty for a violation such as made by Ms. Napolitano “shall be ten times the amount by which the expenditures…exceed the applicable limit.” A.R.S. § 16-942(A). Pursuant to the express terms of A.R.S. § 16-942(A), and the information provided by Ms. Napolitano in her response, the Commission has the authority to issue a civil sanction in the amount of $275,000 (ten times the total amount of the Napolitano-IWS contract value). Similarly, if the Commission only considers the violation to involve the initial installment payment by Ms. Napolitano to IWS ($3,055), then the penalty would be $30,550.

If a Commission investigation determines that there was a “knowing” violation of the law, then the Commission has an addition basis under the law to deny funding to a candidate and/or require the return of the issued public money. A.R.S. § 16-942(D).

THE CCEC HAS JURISIDCTION OVER THE COMMITTEE

Ms. Napolitano argues that “[t]he Commission… does not have jurisdiction over [her] alleged violations of A.R.S. § 16-902.01 .” (pg. 2.) This argument lacks merit.

The Citizens Clean Election Act, Article 2, does not stand alone and independent from Article 1. The two articles are interrelated, and inter-dependent. For example, the definitions for key terms, words or phrases that are used throughout Articles 1 and 2 are found in A.R.S. § 16-901 (in Article 1). Section 16-961 (in Article 2) or R2-20-101 (dealing with Article 2) do not redefine words already defined by the Arizona Legislature in section 16-901, but instead add new words and definitions. Indeed, A.R.S. § 16-961(A) (in Article 2) expressly states that the term “expenditures” is defined in section 16-901 (a component of Article 1).

Ms. Napolitano has filed as a “Clean Candidate,” has accepted, or will accept, taxpayer money to run her campaign, and is bound by the Commission’s decision on whether she violated any aspect of Arizona’s election laws in regards to her “clean” campaign. The Commission bears the responsibility of determining whether all candidates are treated equally under the law, or whether some candidates are “more equal” than others.

Sincerely,

Glenn Hamer

May 24, 2006

CCEC Report on the Governor's Early Start is out...and it doesn't look good for the Gov...

The Tribune ran the story on A1 this morning. Channel 5 ran it as the number 2 story last night. The Republic didn't use its own reporters to cover it, but instead chose to use the initial Associated Press story and then it was buried it on B7. I'm shocked, shocked.

Here's the CCEC Report.

Respondent acknowledges that she received the benefit of a working website on March 1, 2006 and in fact had contractual obligations to the vendor to pay for that benefit. Yet Respondent asserts that these circumstances do not constitute an "expenditure" in violation of the Act. Respondent argues that the subsequent Agreement of March 15, 2006 included an extension of credit, and only then was there an expenditure.

Respondent’s reasoning is unpersuasive and if adopted, would create an unworkable reporting system.

What goes Around (and around and around) Comes Around

Solomon argued that there is nothing new under the sun and once you have worked with state government a while, you begin to realize that he was right.

Just as every generation believes that they have invented sex, every political generation gets elected on a platform of zero based budgeting and consolidating school districts.

Occasionally an idea is implemented that proves to be such a spectacular failure that it can't possibly come back around. I mean, what kind of idiot would propose an idea that seemed clever when it was first tried but ended up being a colossal disaster.

Cue Jon Talton.

Shame on us if the proposal to bring an auto race to downtown Phoenix degenerates into regional bickering.

The Champ Car World Series event promoted by Arizona Diamondbacks co-owner Dale Jensen would be another boost for the region's downtown. Denver and San Jose already host downtown races on the circuit, which features open-wheel, Indy-style cars.

Jensen and entertainment executive Brad Yonover met with property owners at Alice Cooper'stown to promote the benefits for downtown businesses, and dispel fears it would be a repeat of the ill-fated Phoenix Grand Prix races of 1989-91. For example, there would always be a way in and out of the inner race circuit. There's resistance from Phoenix International Raceway against a potential rival.

"Ill fated "Phoenix Grand Prix? Sure, kind of like the Titanic was "ill fated" The Phoenix Grand Prix was Goddard's Gambit--then mayor Terry Goddard's attempt to put Phoenix on the map and it was pure disaster. The city spent over $8 million on improvements, traffic ground to a halt and no one came to watch the French playboys in their little cars.

The final straw was that the Chandler ostrich festival was scheduled at the same time and over 100,000 people went to see the ostriches race and like 12 people attended the Grand Prix.

Even the drivers didn't like the course, the turns were too tight, the surface was too rough. Can you believe it? Who ever heard of French guys complaining?

And can you believe it the folks are PIR are offering "resistance." Perhaps that's because PIR was built with private money...you know, from investors, not bond elections.

Of course, PIR has NASCAR--which people actually go out and watch. So naturally they offer "resistance" when the state sponsors a competing event and keeps it alive with a giant subsidy.

Since my tax dollars are going to be spent on an event that I won't watch and will make it impossible for me to get to work I'd like to offer some "resistance" myself.

But resistance is futile. What goes around comes around.

This Gate is Locked...and besides, no one goes through it.

Last week I mentioned that Howie Fischer has used his role as gatekeeper to ensure that the endorsement by 31 state Legislators didn't make it into the Tribune or the Star.

With no apparent sense of irony, Howie is now pointing out that folks don't seem to know much about the Republican candidates.

A new statewide survey shows that Don Goldwater is the leading contender among those who hope to face off in November against incumbent Democrat Janet Napolitano. But pollster Earl de Berge noted that status comes about with the backing of only 15 percent of those asked -- and just 14 percent of those likely to vote.

Yes, Howie, you locked the gate and indeed there is no traffic going through it.

May 23, 2006

Tribune Calls for Napolitano Investigation

In case you missed last Friday's editorial. Here it is.

Here are a few key paragraphs.

Anyone who wants to be a candidate must first file a “statement of organization,” essentially a declaration of intent to run. Under state law, candidates must make this statement before they raise money, enter into any spending agreements or begin collecting voter signatures to qualify for the ballot.

But on the same day that Napolitano filed her statement, an official campaign Web site appeared. Within three days, a campaign video featuring Napolitano also was posted to the site and thousands of e-mails were sent to voters requesting $5 donations so she could run again with public funding. All of this activity was coordinated by political operative Max Fose.

We’d like to give the benefit of the doubt to our governor and former state attorney general. But this situation appears suspicious to us. Political consultants don’t stay in business very long when they take public steps on behalf of candidates — such as launching Web sites and sending out e-mails — before they have a promise of payment. And Fose is an experienced operative best known for his work with Sen. John McCain.

This commission could start building a reputation for fair and impartial enforcement of the law by taking a close look at what the governor did, or by providing a compelling explanation as to why an investigation isn’t justified.

Earth to Patty

I mentioned last week that Patty Weiss sounded like a crazy aunt in a recent interview.

“Agribusinesses are going across the Mexican border selling corn cheaply. This has been going on for years, and it has put thousands of Mexican farmers out of work. Those Mexican farmers are among the thousands who cross into the US every year looking for a way to support their families.” Weiss thinks that if the US really wanted to solve the immigration problem, they’d prevent American agribusiness from undercutting Mexican trade, a subject neither state or federal lawmakers address.

What? She wants American farmers to stop selling cheap corn to Mexico so she can help Mexican farmers? Who is she trying to represent?

Then I got this letter.

Greg,

I attended a CD8 forum yesterday sponsored by the Marana Chamber of Commerce. The candidates did pretty well, communicating mostly familiar themes.

Patty Weiss did raise an interesting new campaign objective in the race. She wants the U.S. to have a manned colony on Mars before the Chinese set up theirs. I do try to keep up with politics but I did not know this was an issue for the voters of Southern Arizona.

John in Pima County

Dang, she’s triangulating so she can get ahead of the Republicans on the Martian Colonization issues. Graf and Huffman should have had their white papers on Martian Colonization out months ago. Now they will look like they are simply copying her plan.

Of course, if American Agribusinesses continues to undercut Chinese corn prices, the Chinese won’t have enough ethanol to reach mars…and then they will sneak into the United States and open restaurants which will devastate the price of Kung Pao Chicken…a subject neither state or federal lawmakers address.

Randy Graf must be the luckiest man alive…

In the same week in which Patty Weiss does her Jerry Brown imitation, Mike Hellon decides that he’s going to play chicken with a freight train.

Hellon is way behind in the money race and Kolbe’s endorsement of Huffman effectively ends Hellon’s campaign. His exit from the race is inevitable, but the longer he waits, the more he drains resources and momentum from Huffman. Republicans are starting to think the unthinkable…what happens if he commits the political equivalent of self-immolation and stays in the race? Actually, everyone knows what will happen. Graf will beat them both. The question is, where will Hellon have to move? My guess is Utah or Idaho. Because if he doesn't drop out come November he won’t be able to walk through a Costco in Tucson without little children pointing at him and saying “Mommie, there’s the spoiler.”

More on Rimsza

I have had a lot of comments about the Skip Rimsza sign. Here’s a funny letter.

Greg,

I should have taken a picture of it, but on the corner of Pinnacle Peak and Tatum, there was the same Rimsza sign where a prankster put a Vodka bottle pasted to the hand so that it looked like Rimsza was drinking. Given the look on his face, the Vodka bottle seemed to fit.

Chris

Hayworth Mitchell Update

Folks have been wondering if the Democrats are going to invest in the Mitchell. Here’s one letter writer who doesn’t think so.

Greg,

Great point on Mitchell. I would be stunned if the DCCC played here. They are going to have much better targets than Hayworth.

Here is their thought process. First, they have to decide how to play. By that I mean, do they invest in a grassroots operation or invest in a media campaign. Since the district is so heavily Republican, the grassroots campaign doesn’t really work. They must drive up Hayworth’s negatives. That means mail or T.V. Phoenix is one of the most expensive media markets in the country. It will easily cost $1 million in television to have the type of saturation they need. Hypothetically, if J.D. is the 22^nd most vulnerable Republican seat, Do they want to spend north of $1 million on him. That is a BIG gamble. It isn’t like all the other campaigns that are more vulnerable will get the exact same amount of money. By the time they get to the 22^nd most vulnerable seat, they will have spent $30-$40 million on the others. When you factor in defending at least a couple seats, they now have well over $40 million committed. Do they really have $1.5 million to go after their 22^nd pick up? Remember, they only need 15 seats to take control. My bet is that if Harry can’t crack the top 15 he should refrain from putting his name on the ballot. It will be a terrible way for him to end his career.

May 22, 2006

Benji Go Home

So I’m cooking soup on Saturday afternoon, I hear a knock on the door and when I open it there is a kid who is about 12 and a man who is in his late 30’s. The man speaks first and introduces the child as “Benji” He tells me that Benji is earning points so he can attend camp. Benji then proceeds to recite a speech that he’s obviously given a thousand times…he’s earning points for camp he has promised not to do drugs, to stay in school and not join a gang. Would I like to help him earn points for camp?

I asked the older guy who he was and he responded that he was Benji’s “adult sponsor.” Next, I asked how Benji earns points towards camp. The answer caught me by surprise. “By selling subscriptions to the Arizona Republic.” In fact the adult sponsor said that he had been with the republic for 17 years.

I responded that I already subscribe, but I would be happy to give Benji $5 to apply toward camp. The adult sponsor said that would be great, because Benji gets double points for contributions.

That caught my attention.

What do you mean “double points”? I want Benji to keep the $5. The adult sponsor responded that all contributions are put toward subscriptions. The newspapers are then donated to women’s shelters or homeless shelters and that the kids are happier because they would rather earn the trips and prizes.

I didn’t want to get in a debate with the adult sponsor while my dinner was burning and Benji was standing there. So I handed the $5 to Benji and told him that he could either keep it or apply it to camp…it was his choice.

As I stirred my soup and microwaved a couple slices of bacon I began to work through the math to see who was most likely getting ripped off. Because it’s pretty obvious that someone is.

Is it Benji? I don’t think so. It may be unconscionable to use him as bait, but I think he could have kept the $5 and I believe the adult sponsor when he says that Benji would rather have the trip.

I’m a free market guy, and I believe that both sides benefit from a voluntary transaction, so as long as Benji wasn’t coerced, the fact that he’s selling Republic subscriptions on a Saturday afternoon when it’s 104 degrees doesn’t bother me much. Maybe he sews soccer balls for Nike after school. Very entrepreneurial, gotta respect that.

No, I don’t think Benji’s getting ripped off, how about the advertisers?

As we know, newspapers are the only business that loses money on every subscription and makes it up on volume. Circulation is a vehicle for advertising revenue, and newspaper circulation has been plummeting for years. In fact, despite its position as the leading newspaper in one of the nation’s fastest growing counties the Republic has lost 2.7 percent in the last 6 months alone.

Newspapers are so desperate to add subscribers that they are willing to do so at a loss. In fact, some newspapers—Chicago and Dallas--for example have been caught using gimmicks to inflate circulation numbers. The audit bureau of Circulation frowns on that practice.

So when Benji’s adult sponsor assured me that Benji would rather keep the incentives than the cash, I believe him. The paper would be willing to provide more than $5 benefit in exchange for $5 toward a subscription. (Much the same as a clean election candidate would be willing to provide more than $5 benefit in exchange for a contribution.)

So is the Republic ripping of its advertisers by generation phantom subscriptions? Is this another example of a circulation-inflating gimmick?

Let’s assume that the adult sponsor is telling the truth, and the Republic has a program that allows kids to sell subscriptions in exchange for trips and prizes. Let’s assume further that the Republic is very generous with the trips and prizes, so the kids would rather buy subscriptions with the contributions than keep the cash. Furthermore, we will assume that the sponsor is correct and that the excess papers are then donated to the shelters.

That’s brilliant.

Each component looks like charity. If it’s all true, then the Republic has established a way for underprivileged kids to get off the streets, promise to avoid gangs, stay in school and earn “points” toward a camp and prizes that they could never afford.

The camp and prizes are very generous and clearly provide a contribution to the children; the Republic can clearly justify this expenditure. It doesn’t look odd on the books and they get goodwill in the community for helping underprivileged kids.

The excess papers are donated to the shelters and who could argue with that?

Benji’s happy because he gets cool prizes. I’m happy. I gave $5 to Benji, but I clearly would not have purchased another subscription.

The people who get ripped off are the advertisers. My donation (combined with others) purchased subscriptions that will be sent to homeless people who don’t shop at Dillards and the papers will then be thrown away. The cash that made the transaction viable came from the Republic in the form of charitable contributions to underprivileged children. My incentive to contribute was also because of the child. He benefits because the Republic is willing to give him more than $5 for my $5 contribution.

There is, of course, another option.

What if the adult sponsor is ripping off the Republic? It’s possible that the Republic has never heard of Benji and doesn’t realize that children are being used to solicit subscriptions. Maybe the adult sponsor is paid by the Republic to go door to door and sell subscriptions. The Republic gives him enough incentive for each sale that he is able to make a living and send Benji to camp. The economics of the transaction are the same--phantom subscriptions disguised as charity--but the Republic has plausible deniability.

So what's real story? I guess we will probably have to ask management about that one.

I'll email them this morning and see if they are available for comment.

Update: Here's a note from the Publisher.

Greg,

Simply put we don't sell the paper this way. In fact, most of the
comments made by the "sponsor" or your interpretation of how the business works is inaccurate. I'm also pleased so say that the latest release of Scarborough shows the Arizona Republic readership increasing both daily and Sunday.

Greg, I'm in the office all afternoon if you'd like to talk further please
call.

John Zidich

I just received this letter.

Greg, great stuff as always. My last $16.25 monthly payment to the Arizona Republic was in December of 2005. They’ve sent two payment reminders, on which I’ve written “please cancel my subscription” and something about the article they ran about pole dancing. As of today I’m still getting daily delivery.
Best,
Tim Sifert

Zonitics Reveals Further Talton Lunacy.

Why all the problems in Mesa?

Because as Jon Talton states in today’s column, it’s the Decline and Fall of Mesa, all because they didn’t pass a property tax during last week’s election. Now I could give the column a fisking but it’s almost impossible to do because it’s all just 2 or 3 sentence paragraphs strung together about how bad Mesa is and how the Valley should just get rid of it- written in the eternal, catty style of a teenage girl who thinks they should kick the dull, straight-laced girl out of the club because she isn’t cool enough.

May 20, 2006

Look Back In Anger

As predicted, former State Representative, and one time body builder Mark Thompson dropped out of the District 17 race yesterday. Thompson was one of the "moderates" who fought for more spending and worked with Governor Napolitano to run over legislative conservatives in budget negotiations.

Moderate Republicans joined Democrats at the State Capitol in handing conservative legislative leaders a big defeat and Gov. Janet Napolitano a big win in the two big issues of this year's session -- the budget and all-day kindergarten.

This is the second year in a row that moderate Republicans have spurned conservative cohorts and handed victories to the Democratic governor.

Thompson isn't going quietly--which means he isn't coming back. Here's what he said on the way out.

Republicans have proposed a $9.9 billion budget for the next fiscal year, which is about $1.1 billion higher than the current fiscal year ending June 30. The increase, Thompson said, goes against Republican values and is financially irresponsible.

That's right. The guy who very publicly ran over the Republican leadership in order to increase spending is claiming that Republicans are spending too much money.

Do you think that in a quiet moment, during a time of introspection... perhaps while he is shaving is chest in the shower... Mark Thompson realizes what a hypocrite his is?

Me neither.

May 19, 2006

Mark Thompson is going to drop out of the District 17 race today.

Making a list of next fall's winners? You can skip Rimsza.

I've put up thousands of signs for dozens of candidates. I've seen good signs, bad signs, clever signs, vertical signs, diagonal signs, all shapes and sizes.

This sign is the worst that I have ever seen. What is Skip Rimsza thinking? Is it a joke? Did he lose a bet?

The sign fails on so many levels that it's like a bad poem--even a neophyte can see the immediate failure, but further examination will reveal subtle failures that crop up with each pass. It's like reading Robert Frost in reverse..."Two Roads Diverged...."

Let's start with the obvious failings. I've never seen a picture this bad. What's with the missing hand, the buttoned coat and the expression? It looks like he was feeling for something on the top of a wall and put his hand in warm bird poop.

But let's go deeper. Purple with yellow? Give me a break. Notice that his shirt is blue? That means he paid for full four color process. That's expensive and allows him to print the sign in full color. But he has the worst of both worlds, the expense of a full color sign that really only used two colors...and they are purple and yellow.

That's a good first pass, if I were a high school student and noticed those problems, I would get a B. (Which would now add points to my AIMS score.)

Stan Barnes has pointed out that if you Google "Skip Rimsza" you get about 18,000 hits. If you Google "Jan Brewer", you get more than double that amount. So much for experience.

Rimsza is running in a Republican Primary against the incumbent Secretary of State, Jan Brewer. But he didn't write "Republican" on the sign. My gosh. His race is the Primary. The Republican Primary...against an incumbent Republican. He has to put "Republican" on the sign or people will simply assume that he's a Democrat running against Brewer in the General election. Rimsza was the mayor of Phoenix; it's a non-partisan office. Voters don't know that he's a Republican and with this sign, they are going to assume he is a Democrat.

If your race is the General and you are an outnumbered Democrat, you leave "Democrat" off of your sign. That's why Pederson's signs don't have a party affiliation. That's a smart move on Pederson's part. Verkamp is going to try to make him pay for that move. But it's still a smart move. You can bet that Verkamp will have "Democrat" on his sign because he's the underdog in the Primary.

Ok, let's go one level deeper. What's up with the Union Label? Let me repeat Skip, it's a Republican Primary.

Now for the master's thesis. The sign has grommets...those are the little reinforced eyelets that allow you to tie a rope to canvas without splitting the canvas. I don't use them, because they are expensive and I don't think they add that much support. But some people whom I respect very much (e.g. David Schweikert who is a superb campaigner) swear by grommets. Ok, to each his own.

But Rimsza put the grommets on the top and the bottom! They are supposed to go on the side so the sign can be attached to the post. He paid for grommets and put the dang things in the wrong spot so he can't use them. He had to run wire through the side of the signs and ignore the grommets.

Finally, a little history. The biggest advance in sign technology has been the use choroplast. Signs used to be on plywood. They were printed on sheets of paper in three panels by Billboard Poster and glued to the plywood with wallpaper paste. It was expensive, really messy, poor quality and they were very heavy. You could only carry one at a time and good luck getting more than ten in the truck. Eliminating the plywood has been a huge advance.

Incredibly, Rimsza has glued this sign to a sheet of plywood.

Update: I received a ton of overnight email about this post.

Folks want to know if I photoshopped the sign. Absolutely not. This sign is on 44st just south of Oak and all I did is crop it for size. They also wonder if Rimsza has somehow been punk'd. Is it some type of elaborate hoax to make him look bad?

In 1990 someone put up a handful of expensive 4 x 8 signs with Bart Simpson's picture and the slogan "Send another underachiever to the Legislature." The prankster has never come forward.

Others wonder if this is some sort of brilliant scheme by Jan Brewer to ensure that she qualifies for the clean elections money, endorsement and free media that comes from having a contested primary. That's unlikely. That trick only works if you find an obscure candidate and let him run a semi-credible race. This is opposite. Rimsza would normally be a legitimate candidate but this bizarre sign has made him a laughingstock.

But I'm open to the inexplicable. That's why I asked if he was joking or lost a bet. I frankly have no idea what is going on.

May 18, 2006

School Days

Raising kids in the internet age is a challenge. One of the first things that you have to teach them is that you can't cut and paste someone else's words into your homework unless you give them credit.

The next lesson is that you can't write your own words and attribute them to a fancy source so that your arguments sound credible. If you want to express your theories on, say, scientology, you can't write a long passage and then end it with the words "Encyclopedia Britannica, New York Times, 4/15/05"

It looks like Jim Pederson could use some instruction. He has been going round and round with Jon Kyl on immigration issues. Nowicki has good coverage here.

Pederson put this screed on his website today.

Jon Kyl and John Cornyn have been pushing an amendment for months that comprehensive immigration reform backers, including Sen. John McCain, feared was so vaguely worded bill that it would have gutted the bill. As Reuters reported today, “An earlier version of the amendment on criminals by Republicans Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas was seen as a ‘poison pill’ that could have sunk the bill.” A fight over the amendment was averted last night after Kyl and Cornyn backed down and agreed to modify their amendment to clarify the vague language. Thanks to the pressure of comprehensive reform backers like John McCain, President Bush and Jim Pederson, the clarified amendment moved forward and passed 99-0, as it would have a month ago if Kyl and Cornyn had not taken such a hard-line. [Reuters, 5/17/06; Bloomberg, 5/17/06; Houston Chronicle, 5/17/06; MSNBC.com, 5/17/06]

Notice those sources at the end? They look really official don't they? The Reuters quote is out of context, and if you read the other underlying articles, they have nothing to do with Pederson's points. Pederson is never mentioned and there is no reference to Kyl "backing down." In fact, the articles make Kyl look good.

Pederson has simply written his own personal diatribe and ended the press release by referring to actual articles in order to give his release an air of credibility.

That wouldn't fly at Mohave Middle school. Maybe Jim Pederson should come over tomorrow night, in addition to reviewing basic research techniques, we will be multiplying fractions. It sounds like he could use a review of the basics.

Secret Shopper

Unless they are writing to complain about high gas prices, global warming or barking dogs, most people don't ever deal with their Congressman. In fact, most Americans can't name their Congressman.

I recently had a opportunity to work with my Congressman's office because my 13 year old son went to Washington D.C. with his grandparents last weekend and they wanted to tour the White House and see the Senate or House in session.

Post 9/11, White House tickets must be obtained through your Congressional Representative's office. So I called JD Hayworth's office a month or so ago and soon realized that I had cut it too close. But the office staff managed to reserve White House tickets and said that tickets for the House gallery would be waiting in Mr. Hayworth's office in the Rayburn building.

They had a great time on the White House tour, but since the President was speaking on Monday afternoon, they couldn't get to the Rayburn building. They asked a security guard who said that he thought there was an Arizona Congressman in the Longworth Building.

My son called me that evening and said that he received tickets from the Congressman in the Longworth building..."the people in the office were very nice, the congressman's name was Trent Franks, I think he's a Democrat."

The House wasn't in session, so they wanted to go to the Senate and fortunately, Senator Kyl had left Senate Gallery tickets in Congressman Frank's office.

It wouldn't have mattered if Trent Franks had been a Democrat or a Republican and I'm sure that if Daniel had wandered into Congressmen Pastor or Grijalva's office, he would have been treated to excellent service as well.

We often forget what it takes to run a Congressional office and occasionally lose sight of how hard the folks behind the scenes work to ensure that Arizonans are treated well when they interact with the federal government.

It doesn't matter if it's a lost Social Security check, delayed Visa, passport problem or lanky 13 year old with a funny haircut who wants to see the Senate Gallery, there are a bunch of hard working folks of both Parties who work to make sure folks in Arizona are well taken care of.

Thanks guys.

May 17, 2006

Fischer Cut Bait II

Last week I mentioned the phenomenon of "gatekeeper bias."

The most pernicious type of bias occurs when the newspapers use their role as gatekeepers to make sure that you don't hear about stories that conflict with their world view.

Reporters, of course, hold the keys to the gates and when they don't want to let the reader in, they simply close the gate...or direct you through a gate of their preference.

For example, Len Munsil held a press conference last week and announced that he had the endorsement of 29 legislators.

Here's how the Associated Press Covered the Event

29 legislators back Munsil

Dozens of Republican state legislators Thursday endorsed Len Munsil's candidacy for governor.

The AP article appeared in the Republic, the Citizen, KTVK and KPHO.

But why no coverage in the Tribune or the Daily Star? That's because Howie Fischer writes for the Tribune and the Star and he had a different take on the event. Here's how Howie covered the press conference.

Munsil stands by 1985 decision to not publish notices for gay groups

PHOENIX - Republican gubernatorial hopeful Len Munsil said Thursday he acted correctly two decades ago when he used his position as editor of the ASU State Press to refuse to run meeting notices for gay and lesbian groups.

That's right, Len Munsil stood in front of nearly one third of the Legislature--many of whom were from the East Valley--and announced that he had their support and you can't read about it in the East Valley Tribune because Howie Fischer has been entrusted with the key to the gate.

Howie took advantage of the press conference to trot out an old story about a really old story. Richard Ruelas had discussed the State Press story a few weeks earlier and it was a story about and event that was twenty years old.

So if you live in the East Valley and subscribe to the Trib, you have no idea that your legislators are endorsing Len Munsil.

In fact if you read the Trib all you know is that Munsil announced and the twenty year old ASU State Press story. You don't know about the legislative endorsements, the Congressional endorsements, the record setting pace for collecting his $5 contributions or the rapid pace in which he raised his seed money--all stories that have been covered elsewhere.

That's because Howie Fischer controls these gates and he decided that you aren't going through them.

Seems like you are on a need-to-know basis.

So why bother subscribing to the Tribune, or any newspaper for that matter? Hmm, I guess that's the point isn't it?

Here's a good update on the District 8 Race

When Jim Kolbe last week endorsed Steve Huffman to succeed him in Congress, Kolbe made it clear he believes Huffman is best qualified.

Kolbe's real goal, however, was something else entirely: to make sure Randy Graf doesn't win.

Is it possible Kolbe's endorsement may backfire? That the real beneficiary of his support will be Graf and not Huffman?

May 16, 2006

Out of the Senate, In the Race, Off the List, Without a Clue…inside, outside, upside down.

So is Harry Mitchell's race against JD Hayworth a national priority for the Democrats or not? Mitchell's camp claims that they are still one of the "hot" races, but recent press reports indicate otherwise.

Here’s how it played out in The Hill.

The first phase of Democratic candidates to benefit from the House Democrats’ Red to Blue fundraising program includes six fewer candidates than originally reported.

A spokeswoman for Harry Mitchell was similarly unfazed.

“He definitely is on the list. ... [Rep.] Rahm Emanuel [D-Ill.] called him and told him so.”

And indeed, the DCCC seemed to put the story to rest with this response. As reported by Nowicki.

"It is absurd. It was a misreported article. Harry Mitchell, and that race, is very important to us. It is still a top priority and still a part of the 'Red to Blue' program. That reporter had gotten a hold of a fundraising packet that included only certain candidates that we were targeting for that particular donor. So nothing more than that."

However, Paul Giblin had this to say in the Monday’s Trib.

Harry Mitchell will have to wait for a national organization dedicated to putting Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives to show him the money.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee previously identified him as one of 22 candidates nationwide to benefit from its Red to Blue fundraising program.